Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kurakula Saidulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 December, 2020
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5615 OF 2020
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking a direction to the Station House Officer, Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District to release the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 07 TM 1657 and tobacco products seized in connection with F.I.R. No.607 of 2020 of Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District.
2. Heard Sri D.Kasi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state.
3. The above said crime has been registered against the petitioners under Sections 188, 270, 273, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 56, 63, 57(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 against which, the petitioners herein have filed Criminal Petition No.5374 of 2020 before this Court seeking to quash the said F.I.R. This Court has allowed the said criminal petition vide common order dated 24.11.2020, basing on the common orders passed by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3731 of 2018 and batch and Criminal Petition No.5421 of 2019.
Subsequently when the petitioners approached the concerned Police for return of the seized vehicle and tobacco products they have not given proper response. Hence, the present criminal petition is filed.
4. Taking into consideration that the above F.I.R. has already been quashed by this Court by common order dated 24.11.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No.5353 of 2020 and batch, the 2 property that was seized from the petitioners herein in connection with the said F.I.R. is liable to be returned to them.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Station House Officer, Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District is directed to release the seized Eicher lorry bearing registration No.AP 07 TM 1657 and tobacco products in connection with F.I.R.No.607 of 2020.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Date: 07.12.2020 IKN 3 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5615 of 2020 Date: 07.12.2020 IKN 4 Crlp No.4443 of 2020 This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in SC, ST SC No.70 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru-cum-Special Judge, under SCs, STs (POA) Act, 1989 in respect of the petitioners/A1 to A5 and A7 to A9, wherein cognizance has been taken alleging that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under the 143, 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 2(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC, ST (POA) Act.
The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2/complainant who is studying B.Tech (final) year in SRKR Engineering College lodged a report alleging that on 20.07.2018 on receiving call from one Chennu Ram Charan who is his brother's friend respondent No.2 along with his brother and friends went to the shed situated at Town Railway Station. The accused by abusing beat respondent No.2 and others with rods due to which they sustained bleeding injuries. Basing on the same, crime was registered and was taken cognizance as S.C.No.70 of 2020.
Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet reveals that investigating Officer after thorough enquiry crime was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. but during the course of investigation found that Section 307 is not attracted as they could not seize any incriminating material i.e. crime weapons from the scene of offence and after examining the witnesses deleted Section 307 I.P.C. But, later the second investigating officer has again added Section 307 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the injuries certificate and points out that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and as such Section 307 I.P.C. is not attracted to the offences. Leanred counsel for the petitioners submits that in the entire evidence of the 5 witnesses there is no whisper about abusing them in the name of the caste.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that disputed questions cannot be gone into and it will only come into light once trial is commenced.
In view of the fact that the crime weapons as alleged were not recovered and the injury sustained by respondent No.2 are simple in nature and also considering the fact that there are no allegations in the evidence collected with regard to abusing in the name of caste, there shall by stay of all further proceedings in SC, ST SC No.70 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari Eluru - cum -Special Judge under SCs, STs (POA) Act, 1989.
6Crl.P.No.4444 of 2020.
Respondent No.2 herein has given complaint alleging that there was an agreement between him and the petitioner/accused with regard to immovable property and the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance but failed to pay the remaining amount. Therefore, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to sell the property and return the amount paid by him. However, later the deviated the same and started demanding respondent No.2 to handover the land so that he would lay plots and sell the property. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 09.05.2020 the petitioner came to the house of respondent No.2 and abused him in the name of the caste. Basing on the said complaint the present crime is registered.
Heard Sir K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- state.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident has taken place on 09.05.2020 as alleged in the complaint, but the complaint was lodged on 16.09.2020. He also submits that if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken it is disclosed that there is civil dispute between the parties and giving complaint after lapse of four months itself shows that to implicate the petitioner in a crime the said complaint is lodged, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and further learned counsel submits that even as per the complaint abusing respondent No.2 was not in the public eye. Hence, provisions under SCs STs (POA) Act are not attracted.
In that view of the matter there shall be stay of all further proceedings.